Former chief statistician Wayne R. Smith pictured here at the Jean Talon Building after submitting his resignation, surrounded by workers who gathered to thank him for his service.Tony Caldwell / Postmedia Network

Two months after abruptly resigning his post as Canada’s chief statistician over concerns that the government’s drive to centralize information technology under Shared Services Canada could threaten the independence of the agency, Wayne Smith made his first post-employment parliamentary appearance on Wednesday afternoon.

But though the House government operations committee had set aside an hour to hear what the now former data wrangler had to say about the controversial IT initiative, the meeting was ultimately cut short by a series of procedural battles in the Commons Chamber.

The decision to invite Smith to testify before the committee was triggered by a motion put forward by New Democrat Erin Weir shortly after the House reopened for business in September, and had initially hoped to convince his colleagues to formally reopen their review of the project,which was launched, amid much fanfare, by the Conservative government in 2011.

At the end of Wednesday’s curtailed session, Smith assured the committee that he would be happy to answer any additional questions should members wish to contact him directly.

Greetings, big data enthusiasts and informatics centralization sceptics alike! Before we begin — and by “we”, I mean the committee, of course, which is apparently running a bit late — I should offer a general clock-related caveat: Due to an ongoing dispute over the length of time required to debate the government’s proposed pension changes, this meeting may be interrupted momentarily by a call to vote — a 30 minute bell, to be precise — which could lead to a delay, or even postponement, of today’s much-anticipated appearance by former Statistics Canada chief Wayne Smith.

We’ll know if/when the white lights on the wall start to flash. I’ll keep you posted.

And we’re off! First up, what Smith wrote assures the committee will be a “brief” opening statement, which is basically a recap of the sequence of events that led to his decision to step down, starting (at least as far as his account) with his August 4 letter to the prime minister, in which Smith reminded Trudeau of his ostensible commitment to the independence of the agency, and outlined his ongoing concerns over the “deteriorating situation” with Shared Services Canada.

He didn’t hear back within the allotted time, so he went ahead submitted his resignation, which is what brings us here today.

Smith notes that he’s heard that some “short term” improvements have been made, but he still seems to be concerned.

With that, he wraps up, and opens the floor to questions. (That *was* brief!)

UPDATE: It appears that this is likely only the first of at least two (possibly there) votes if the Liberals are, indeed, bound and determined to move time allocation this afternoon. I’m not sure if the committee will keep Smith cooling his heels at the witness table for the duration, but we’ll see.

We’re back in session, although probably not for long, as committee chair Tom Lukiwski advises all and sundry that, given his experiences on the other side of the Chamber as a parliamentary secretary, he feels pretty safe predicting another round of bells in 8-10 minutes.

In the meantime, though, Smith seems perfectly comfortable fielding Liberal MP Nick Whelan’s question on how something as seemingly technical as data-sharing could actually threaten the independence of the agency.

(Basically, it’s all about control, as Smith detailed in his letter of resignation.)

Interestingly, Whelan also made a point of getting Smith to confirm that he hadn’t been involved in consultations on the migration, although the former data wrangler *does* recall the creation of a task force to deal with major issues.

But when it came to actually *solving* those problems, Smith is adamant that none of the commitments were met, as far as delivery and capacity, and the agency was ultimately forced to turn to a Plan B for the census.

He acknowledges that there may have been *some* progress since his departure, but notes that the last thing he heard from his then chief was that not only did they not have a date for delivery, but they didn’t even have a date to *get* a date for delivery.

Over to the Conservative side of the table, where Kelly McCauley gets Smith to provide a bit more context on the letter he sent to the prime minister – – to which Smith confirms he received a reply, although it just restated the government’s position.

There go the bells again — but this time around, the committee is going to stay in session for a few more minutes (which requires consent, but no one seems to be objecting) to let McCauley finish up and Weir get at least one round, thus ensuring that each party has the opportunity to question Smith.

At McCauley’s invitation, Smith lists a few examples of Shared Services making decisions wiht which he disagreed, and describes the state of the agency’s informatics as being in ‘disarray’ due to the failure to deliver the necessary equipment.

“I have no issue with using Shared Services Canada as a service,” Smith says, but he thinks Statistics Canada needs to have “meaningful control” over its own Infrastructure, which it was no longer able to do under SSC.

The whole idea is “incohreent’ with the concept of Statistics Canada as an independent agency, he notes.

Over to Weir — the lone New Democrat who instigated this meeting with his motion — who wonders if Smith can name a particular study that StatsCan was unable to conduct as a result of Shared Services Canasa.

Smith points to a litany of complaints, including a total shutdown in July that brought the “legacy Infrastructure” down for a full day.

Weir gives Smith another opportunity to blame SSC for problems with the census. Smith points out that SSC was responsible for buying the necessary equipment, although he acknowledges that *eventually*, that happened.

“They did provide the support we needed for the census to be successful,” he says. (It sounds as though it was everything *else* that went pear-shaped.)

Weir then walks Smith through another concern that he included in his resignation letter: namely, the privacy issue, as there is considerable information that, by law, is never supposed to be out of the custody of Statistics Canada.

Weir wonders which other government officials he spoke to, and Smith says that he met with all the people you’d expect: the head of SSC, the minister, the clerk of the privy council and, eventually, the prime minisgter.

Over all that time, he says, he can’t recall receiving a single “meaningful’ suggestion for dealing with the issues, although he muses that this could have been because there were (and presumably are) so many other complaints and concerns.

Back to the Liberal side, where Francis Drouin is trying to get Smith to acknowledge that there are *always* glitches with technology.

He also goes back to a line of questioning first started by his colleague at the beginning of the Q&A: specifically, what steps did he take to discuss his concerns with officials *before* resigning.

(For his part, Smith pretty consistently points out that he had his IT officials and other staff working on it.)

Drouin also wonders if there was an inventory of hardware — and specifically, what might need to be fixed in the next few years.

“We knew what was there, but it wasn’t particularly efficient,” Smith says — but they were already taking steps to address those issues *before* SSC arrived on the scene – and in fact, Statistics Canada was among the *most* prepared, he suggests.

Smith gives the same xplanation he did in his letter: He did everything *short* of resign to express his concern, so that was the next logical step.

And on that note, Lukiwski wraps up the public portion of the meeting: the witness is excused, with the proviso that he will “happily’ communicate with members directly if they have any further questions.

That’s it for today’s liveblog, as it turns out. My apologies for the interruptions, but as those of us stuck idling in a half-empty committee room always say: “That’s democracy!”

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Market to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.